Grupo Bimbo - Order Denying PI

7/27/2019 Grupo Bimbo - Order Denying PI

1/44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

CENTRAL DI STRI CT OF CALI FORNI A

GRUPO BI MBO, S. A. B. DE C. V. ,BARCEL USA, LLC

Pl ai nt i f f s,

v.

SNAK- KI NG, CORP. , and THETRUSTEE OF THE LEVI N FAMI LY2010 I RREVOCABLE GI FT TRUST,

Def endants._______________________________

)))))))))))))

CASE NO. : CV 13- 2147 ABC ( VBKx)

ORDER DENYI NG PLAI NTI FFS MOTI ONFOR PRELI MI NARY I NJ UNCTI ON

PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION

[NOTE: Cer t ai n por t i ons of t hi s Or der have been r edact ed due t o

t he conf i dent i al nat ur e of an agr eement r ef er enced i n t he par t i es

br i ef s. A f ul l copy of t he Or der has been f i l ed under seal f or

vi ewi ng by t he par t i es. ]

Pendi ng bef or e t he Cour t i s Pl ai nt i f f s Gr upo Bi mbo, S. A. B. deC. V. ( Bi mbo) and Bar cel USA, LLC s ( Bar cel , col l ect i vel y

Pl ai nt i f f s) mot i on f or a pr el i mi nar y i nj uncti on, f i l ed on Apr i l 30,

2013. ( Docket No. 23. ) Def endant s Snak- Ki ng Corp. and The Trust ee of

The Levi n Fami l y 2010 I r r evocabl e Gi f t Tr ust opposed on May 27 and

Pl ai nt i f f s r epl i ed on J une 3. ( Docket Nos. 48, 59. ) The Cour t

Case 2:13-cv-02147-ABC-VBK Document 130 Filed 07/22/13 Page 1 of 44 Page ID #:2412


2/44

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

or der ed suppl ement al br i ef i ng on J une 12 and J ul y 2, and t he par t i es

f i l ed suppl ement al br i ef s under seal . ( Docket Nos. 66, 71, 77, 82,

89. ) The Cour t hear d oral argument on Monday, J ul y 22, 2013. For t he

r easons bel ow, t he mot i on i s DENIED.I. BACKGROUND1

Thi s t r ademar k and t r ade dress case ar i ses out of a cl ash bet ween

TAKI S, a r ol l ed t or t i l l a chi p manuf act ured and di st r i but ed by

Pl ai nt i f f s Bi mbo and Barcel , and TACO- LI TOS, a compet i ng pr oduct

manuf actur ed and di st r i but ed by Def endant Snak- Ki ng. By way of t hi s

mot i on, Pl ai nt i f f s seek t o enj oi n Snak- Ki ng f r om adver t i si ng,

pr omot i ng, mar ket i ng, di st r i but i ng, pr oduci ng, or sel l i ng any pr oduct s

t hat use t he TACO- LI TOS mar k, packagi ng, or pr oduct shape, bel i evi ng

t hat TACO- LI TOS has caused and wi l l cause subst ant i al consumer

conf usi on wi t h TAKI S. Pl ai nt i f f s cont end t hat t he gr owi ng

di st r i but i on of TACO- LI TOS wi l l i r r epar abl y har m t hei r har d- ear ned

goodwi l l .

A. Plaintiffs TAKIS Corn Snacks

Bi mbo i s a publ i cl y t r aded Mexi can company, and Bar cel i s i t s

Uni t ed St at es subsi di ar y. ( Decl ar at i on of Ruben Her r er a 1. ) Bi mbo

pr oduces, di st r i but es, and mar ket s near l y 10, 000 di f f er ent f ood

pr oduct s ar ound t he wor l d. I d. 4. I t s wel l - known Uni t ed St at es

brands i ncl ude THOMAS Engl i sh muf f i ns, ENTENMANN s baked goods, SARA

LEE br eads, and t he subj ect of t hi s mot i on, TAKI S cor n snacks. I d.Bar cel manuf act ur es, i mpor t s, di st r i but es, and sel l s TAKI S cor n snacks

i n t he Uni t ed St at es f or Bi mbo. I d.

1 The Cour t has r evi ewed t he par t i es obj ect i ons t o evi dence andt o t he extent t hose obj ect i ons ar e i nconsi st ent wi t h t he Cour t sr ul i ng, t hey ar e OVERRULED.

2



3/44

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

I n t he Uni t ed St at es, sal es of TAKI S cor n snacks have been

i ncr easi ng. I n 2006, Bar cel sol d appr oxi mat el y $2. 8 mi l l i on of TAKI S

cor n snacks. I d. 5. I n 2008, sal es of TAKI S i ncr eased t o $20

mi l l i on, and by 2012, sal es had i ncr eased t o $90 mi l l i on. I d. Si nce2008, t ot al Uni t ed St at es sal es of TAKI S cor n snacks have exceeded

$290 mi l l i on. I d.

TAKI S cor n snacks come i n di f f er ent f l avors. I d. 6. The most

popul ar f l avor , chi l i and l i me, i s of f er ed under t he secondar y mar k

FUEGO. I d. TAKI S FUEGO r epr esent s appr oxi matel y 85% of TAKI S sal es

i n t he Uni t ed St at es, and mor e t han 50% of Bar cel s r evenues. I d.

TAKI S ar e sol d by maj or bi g box r et ai l er s, chai n and i ndependent

gr ocer y st or es, conveni ence st or es, gas s t at i ons, and i ndependent

st or es. I d. 17. For exampl e, TAKI S can be f ound i n over 1, 400 Wal -

Mar t st or es and 200 Tar get st or es, Sam s Cl ubs, Kr oger , Saf eway

( Von s) , Food 4 Less, Wal gr eens, CVS, Ci r cl e K, and 7- El even. I d.

B. The TAKIS Mark and Trade Dress2

Pl ai nt i f f s argue that t he TAKI S mar k and t r ade dr ess ar e uni que

sour ce i dent i f i er s f or TAKI S cor n snacks.

1. TAKIS Mark

The TAKI S mar k i s t he subj ect of several U. S. f eder al t r ademar k

r egi st r at i ons, i ncl udi ng an i ncont est abl e r egi st r at i on. ( Decl ar at i on

2 Pl ai nt i f f s i dent i f y t hr ee TAKI S sour ce i dent i f i er s- t he

TAKI S mar k, packagi ng, and product conf i gur at i on ( shape of t he cor nsnack) . ( Mem. at 2. ) Packagi ng and pr oduct conf i gur at i on ar e bot haspect s of t r ade dr ess. McCar t hy on Trademarks 8: 5 ( 4t h ed. 2013)( Whi l e t r ade dr ess t r adi t i onal l y r ef er r ed t o packagi ng andl abel l i ng of a pr oduct , t he t er m has now been st r et ched t o i ncl ude t heshape and desi gn of t he pr oduct i t sel f . ) ; Wal - Mar t St or es, I nc. v.Samar a Br ot her s, I nc. , 529 U. S. 205, 209 ( 2000) ( t r ade dr ess i s " acat egor y t hat or i gi nal l y i ncl uded onl y t he packagi ng or dr essi ng ofa pr oduct , but i n recent years has been expanded by many cour t s ofappeal t o encompass t he desi gn of a pr oduct . " ) .

3



4/44

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

of Edwi n Mann 2, Ex. 1. )

U. S. Tr ademar k Regi str at i on 2, 770, 663, Pr i nci palRegi st er : TAKI S f or f r i ed cor n snacks. ( MannDecl . , Ex. 1 at 143) ( r egi st er ed Oct . 7, 2003;i ncont est abl e) .

U. S. Tr ademar k Regi str at i on 4, 079, 594, Pr i nci palRegi st er The mar k consi st s of t he word TAKI Swi t h a swi r l desi gn i nst ead of a dot over t hel et t er i . ( I d. Ex. 1 at 145. ) Ther egi st r at i on f ur t her st at es t hat t he wor d TAKI Shas no meani ng i n a f orei gn l anguage. I d.

Despi t e acknowl edgi ng t hat TAKI S i s a coi ned t er m, Pl ai nt i f f s

asser t t hat i t uses t he Spani sh suf f i x - I S, a di mi nut i ve, t o convey

t he i dea of a l i t t l e t aco. ( Her r er a Decl . 7, 26. )

2. Trade Dress

Pl ai nt i f f s make t wo ar gument s r egar di ng TAKI S t r ade dr ess:

pr oduct conf i gur at i on and packagi ng. Pl ai nt i f f s asser t t hat t he TAKI S

pr oduct conf i gur at i on sl ant ed ends and vi si bl e f ol d suggest i ve of a

r ol l ed t aco i s i mmedi at el y i dent i f i abl e as TAKI S. ( Mem. at 3;

Her r er a Decl . 11. ) I nt er est i ngl y, t he Uni t ed St at es Pat ent and

Tr ademar k Of f i ce ( PTO) i ni t i al l y r ef used t o r egi st er t he TAKI S

pr oduct shape on t he gr ound t hat appl i cant s mark i s a non-

di st i nct i ve pr oduct conf i gur at i on. ( Decl ar at i on of Ci ndy Cadi t z

18, Ex. 15; Suppl ement al Decl ar at i on of Ci ndy L. Cadi t z 5, Ex. 3. )

Bi mbo submi t t ed a Response t o Of f i ce Act i on on J ul y 3, 2006, ar gui ng

t hat i t had made cont i nuous and subst ant i al l y excl usi ve use of t he

mark i n U. S. commerce at l east si nce November 2000" and t hat t he PTOmay presume t he mark had become di st i nct i ve based on such use. I d.

Af t er publ i shi ng of f i ci al not i ce of t he mar k and r ecei vi ng no

opposi t i on, t he TAKI S pr oduct shape was f eder al l y regi st er ed on

December 26, 2006. Mann Decl . , Ex. 1 at 161 ( U. S. Trademark

Regi st r at i on 3, 188, 850, The mar k consi st s of t he conf i gur at i on of t he

4



5/44

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

goods i n t he f or m of a r ol l ed- up t aco shel l . ) . The mar k i s now

i ncont est abl e.

The packagi ng f or var i ous f l avors of TAKI S i s al so f eder al l y

r egi st er ed, al t hough not i ncont est abl e. See Mann Decl . , Ex. 1 at 148( U. S. t r ademar k regi st r at i on 3, 783, 796 f or TAKI S Cr unchy Faj i t a) ; Ex.

1 at 152 ( U. S. Trademark Regi st r at i on 3, 783, 767 f or TAKI S FUEGO) ; Ex.

1 at 155 ( U. S. Trademark Regi st r at i on 3, 783, 785 f or TAKI S Guacamol e) ;

Ex. 1 at 157 ( U. S. Tr ademar k Regi st r at i on 3, 862, 100 f or TAKI S NI TRO) ;

Ex. 1 at 159 ( U. S. Tr ademar k Regi st r at i on 3, 783, 797 f or TAKI S Sal sa

Br ava) . The f eder al r egi st r at i ons f or packagi ng expr essl y di scl ai m

t he excl usi ve r i ght t o use t he pi ct or i al r epr esent at i ons of t he cor n

snacks and l i mes apart f r om t he mark as shown. I d.

Accor di ng t o Pl ai nt i f f s, t he TAKI S packagi ng cont ai ns t he

f ol l owi ng el ement s: ( 1) br i ght pur pl e and bl ack bag; ( 2) t hr ee, r ed-

or ange cor n snacks i n t he shape of t he TAKI S pr oduct conf i gur at i on;

( 3) t he cor n snacks l ayi ng acr oss each ot her wi t h vi si bl e sl ant ed ends

and f ol d; ( 4) f l ame under t he cor n snacks; ( 5) t wo cut l i mes; ( 6)

TAKI S wor d mar k i n yel l ow; and ( 7) a backgr ound swi r l desi gn. ( Mem.

at 6. )

C. Barcels Advertising of TAKIS

Si nce 2009, Bar cel has spent over $10 mi l l i on adver t i si ng TAKI S,

i ncl udi ng t hr ough i n- st or e shel f di spl ays, i nt er net , si gns, pr i nt ,

t el evi si on, r adi o, di r ect mar ket i ng, and speci al pr omot i ons. ( Her r er aDecl . 13. ) Bar cel al so pr omot es TAKI S vi a soci al medi a, i ncl udi ng

Facebook and Twi t t er . I d. 16. The TAKI S Facebook page has r ecei ved

over 1. 9 mi l l i on Li kes. I d.

TAKI S has r ecei ved publ i ci t y f r om t hi r d par t i es. TAKI S wer e t he

subj ect of a Chi cago Tr i bune t ast e t est ar t i cl e i n whi ch TAKI FUEGO

5



6/44

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

won f or spi cy snacks. ( Mann Decl . , Ex. 3. ) I n 2012, Mi nneapol i s

chi l dr en cr eat ed a musi c vi deo t i t l ed Hot Cheet os and Taki s t hat

r ecei ved over f i ve mi l l i on hi t s on YouTube. I d. , Ex. 4.

D. Snak-King Produces Taquito Chips for Private Label Brands

I n l at e 2011, Snak- Ki ng began pr oduci ng t aqui t o chi ps f or pr i vat e

l abel br ands. ( Decl ar at i on of Bar r y C. Levi n 10, 13. ) Snak- Ki ng s

pr i vat e l abel br and t aqui t o chi ps have been sol d at 7- El even st or es

cont i nuousl y si nce l at e 2011 t o t he pr esent , at Wal - Mar t st or es

cont i nuousl y si nce Febr uar y 2012 to t he pr esent , and at Fr esh & Easy

st or es cont i nuousl y si nce Oct ober 2012. I d. 13.

I n ear l y 2012, Bi mbo l ear ned t hat Snak- Ki ng was pr oduci ng a

pr i vat e l abel corn snack under t he name Gr eat Val ue f or Wal - Mart .

( Her r er a Decl . 21. ) Upon l ear ni ng t hat t he Gr eat Val ue cor n snacks

had a vi r t ual l y i dent i cal shape t o TAKI S, Pl ai nt i f f s at t or neys sent a

cease- and- desi st l et t er t o Wal - Mar t s counsel on Febr uar y 13, 2012.

( Mann Decl . , Ex. 11. ) Pl ai nt i f f s and Snak- Ki ng exchanged sever al

communi cat i ons, i ncl udi ng Snak- Ki ng s J une 21, 2012 not i f i cat i on to

Pl ai nt i f f s t hat i t woul d wi t hi n t he next week move f or war d wi t h pl ans

t o manuf act ur e and sel l i t s own br and of r ol l ed t or t i l l a snack f oods

and [ woul d] be i nvest i ng subst ant i al t i me and r esour ces i n t he

devel opment and gr owt h of t he pr oduct l i ne. ( Cadi t z Decl . , Ex. 6. )

Snak- Ki ng subsequent l y made an of f er of a negot i at ed r esol ut i on

set t i ng a J ul y 20, 2012 deadl i ne f or Pl ai nt i f f s t o r espond. ( MannDecl . , Ex. 11 at 197- 198. ) Al t hough Pl ai nt i f f s counsel sent an

August 1, 2012 emai l st at i ng t hat hi s cl i ent cont i nues t o consi der

[ Snak- Ki ng s] of f er and we hope to respond t o i t i n t he near f ut ur e,

i t appear s t hat no r esponse was f or t hcomi ng. I d. ; Cadi t z Decl . 10.

Pl ai nt i f f s pr ovi de no expl anat i on f or t he abr upt end t o t hei r

6



7/44

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

communi cat i ons wi t h Snak- Ki ng; t hey si mpl y st ate t hat by mi d- 2012,

t hey bel i eved t he Gr eat Val ue cor n snacks wer e no l onger bei ng sol d.

( Her r er a Decl . 22. )

Despi t e Pl ai nt i f f s knowl edge i n ear l y 2012 t hat Snak- Ki ng wassuppl yi ng Wal - Mar t and 7- El even wi t h t aqui t o chi ps i n a vi r t ual l y

i dent i cal shape t o TAKI S, Pl ai nt i f f s di d not f i l e t hi s sui t unt i l

Mar ch 1, 2013. ( Cadi t z Decl . 3. )

E. Snak-Kings TACO-LITOS Brand Corn Snacks

I n Oct ober 2012, Snak- Ki ng began sel l i ng TACO- LI TOS, a corn snack

pr oduct t hat compet es wi t h TAKI S. ( Her r er a Decl . 21; Levi n Decl .

14. ) Snak- Ki ng devel oped t he TACO- LI TOS name, whi ch combi nes t he

Spani sh wor d t aco wi t h t he suf f i x i t o meani ng smal l . ( Levi n Decl .

14. ) TACO- LI TOS are sol d under Snak- Ki ng s EL SABROSO t r ademark.

I d. 15.

Pl ai nt i f f s al l ege TACO- LI TOS i s si mi l ar t o TAKI S i n packagi ng and

pr oduct shape and t hat TACO- LI TOS f l avors t r ack each of t he TAKI S

f l avor s. ( Mann Decl . , Exs. 9- 10. )

Packaging:

7



8/44

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Product Shape:

TAKIS flavors: Fuego ( chi l i and l i me) , Guacamol e, Sal sa Br ava,

Cr unchy Faj i t a, Ni t r o

TACO-LITOS flavors: Spi cy Chi l e N Li me, Guacamol e, Sal sa Pi cant e

( Mann Decl . , Ex. 9; Levi n Decl . 15, Ex. 3. )

F. Bimbos Agreement with PepsiCos Subsidiary, Frito-Lay

Def endant s chal l enge Bi mbo s pr oduct conf i gur at i on r egi st r at i on

on t he gr ounds t hat Bi mbo di d not use t he t aqui t o chi p shape

subst ant i al l y excl usi vel y f r om 2000 t hr ough 2006. ( Docket No. 75,

Supp. Mem. at 2. ) For a f ew year s dur i ng t hat t i me per i od, Pepsi Co s

subsi di ar y Fr i t o- Lay Nor t h Amer i ca, I nc. was al so pr oduci ng t aqui t o

chi ps bear i ng t he same pr oduct conf i gur at i on as Pl ai nt i f f s TAKI S

pr oduct . I d. Def endant s poi nt t o t wo separ at e Stat ement of Use

document s t hat Fr i t o- Lay f i l ed wi t h t he PTO i n 2004 f or i t s DORI TOS

ROLLI TOS t aqui t o chi p. ( Cadi t z Decl . 17, Ex. 14; Supp. Cadi t z

Decl . 6, Ex. 4. ) Those document s st ated t hat t he speci mens were

f i r st used i n commerce i n December 2003. I d. Pepsi Co di scont i nuedDORI TOS ROLLI TOS i n 2005. ( Decl arat i on of Tracey L. Gi ert z 5, Ex.

4. )

I n Febr uar y 2012, Fr i t o Lay rei nt r oduced t he taqui t o chi p usi ng

t he t r ademar k DORI TOS DI NAMI TA. ( Cadi t z Decl . 7, Ex. 5. ) Fr i t o-

Lay s DORI TOS DI NAMI TA uses t he Taki s conf i gur at i on mark i n t he U. S.

8



9/44

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

under a t r ansact i on agr eement wi t h Bi mbo. I d. 8, Ex. 6 at 2.

[REDACTED]

Bot h si des have submi t t ed decl ar at i ons r egardi ng t he

i nt er pr et at i on and appl i cat i on of Mexi can l aw t o t he agr eement .( Docket Nos. 81, 89. )

[REDACTED]

I n t hi s act i on, Pl ai nt i f f s have asser t ed cl ai ms f or t r ademar k

i nf r i ngement , packagi ng t r ade dr ess i nf r i ngement , and i nf r i ngement of

pr oduct conf i gur at i on t r ade dr ess under t he Lanham Act , 15 U. S. C.

1114, 1125( a) .

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A pl ai nt i f f seeki ng a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on must est abl i sh t hat

he i s l i kel y t o succeed on t he mer i t s, t hat he i s l i kel y t o suf f er

i r r epar abl e har m i n t he absence of pr el i mi nar y rel i ef , t hat t he

bal ance of har dshi ps t i ps i n hi s f avor , and t hat an i nj unct i on i s i n

t he publ i c i nt er est . Wi nt er v. Nat ur al Res. Def ense Counci l , I nc. ,

555 U. S. 7, 20 ( 2008) ; Mar l yn Nut r aceut i cal s, I nc. v. Mucos Phar ma

GmbH & Co. , 571 F. 3d 873, 877 ( 9t h Ci r . 2009) . Thi s reci t at i on of t he

r equi r ement s f or a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on di d not compl et el y er ase t he

Ni nt h Ci r cui t s sl i di ng scal e appr oach, whi ch pr ovi ded t hat t he

el ement s of t he pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on t est ar e bal anced, so t hat a

st r onger showi ng of one el ement may of f set a weaker showi ng of

anot her . Vanguar d Out door , LLC v. Ci t y of Los Angel es, 648 F. 3d 737,739 ( 9t h Ci r . 2011) .

I n one ver si on of t he sl i di ng scal e, a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on

coul d i ssue wher e t he l i kel i hood of success i s such t hat ser i ous

quest i ons goi ng t o the mer i t s wer e rai sed and t he bal ance of har dshi ps

t i ps shar pl y i n [ pl ai nt i f f s] f avor . I d. at 740 ( i nt er nal quot at i on

9



10/44

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

mar ks omi t t ed; br acket s i n or i gi nal ) . Thi s ser i ous quest i ons t est

sur vi ved Wi nt er . I d. Ther ef or e, ser i ous quest i ons goi ng t o t he

mer i t s and a har dshi p bal ance t hat t i ps shar pl y i n t he pl ai nt i f f s

f avor can suppor t i ssuance of an i nj unct i on, so l ong as t he pl ai nt i f fal so shows a l i kel i hood of i r r epar abl e i nj ur y and t hat t he i nj unct i on

i s i n t he publ i c i nt er est . I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

III. DISCUSSION

Pl ai nt i f f seeks a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on based on t r ademar k,

t r ade dr ess ( pr oduct shape) , and t r ade dr ess ( packagi ng) . 3

As a pr el i mi nar y mat t er , t he Cour t f i nds t hat Def endant s

def i ni t i on of t he r el evant compet i t i ve mar ket as t aqui t o chi ps i s

t oo nar r owl y def i ned. See, e. g. , Topps Co. v. Ger r i t J . Ver bur g Co. ,

41 U. S. P. Q. 2d 1412, 1419 ( S. D. N. Y. 1996) ( i mpr oper t o def i ne t he

compet i t i ve mar ket as di amond r i ng shaped l ol l i pops [ pl ai nt i f f s t r ade

dr ess] r at her t han t he candy i ndust r y i n gener al ) ; accor d For d Mot or

Co. v. Ll oyd Desi gn Cor p. , 184 F. Supp. 2d 665 ( E. D. Mi ch. 2002) ( t he

pr oduct cat egory i s not aut o f l oor mat s wi t h FORD t r ademarks on t hem,

but aut o f l oor mat s wi t h any i ndi ci a on t hem) . Even Snak- Ki ng s own

f i l i ngs wi t h t he PTO i dent i f y TACO- LI TOS as goods i ncl udi ng cor n

chi ps and t or t i l l a chi ps, not t aqui t os or t aqui t o chi ps. ( Gi er t z

Decl . , Ex. 5. ) 4 Thus, t he Cour t agr ees wi t h Pl ai nt i f f s t hat t he

3 At many poi nt s i n bot h par t i es br i ef s, t he anal yses conver ge,

whi ch i s under st andabl e gi ven t he amount of over l ap i n t he t heor i es.Never t hel ess, each of t hese cl ai ms must st and al one i f t he Cour t i s t ogr ant a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on. When t he same anal ysi s appl i es t omore than one theor y of i nf r i ngement , t he Cour t has endeavor ed t ocr oss- r ef er ence the pr evi ous sect i on of t he Or der wher e the el ement i sdi scussed i n gr eat er det ai l .

4 Def endant s exampl es of var yi ng br ands of f r ozen t aqui t os( e.g., J ose Ol e, Don Mi guel , and El Mont er ey) ar e t her ef or e

( cont i nued. . . )

10

Case 2:13-cv-02147-ABC-VBK Document 130 Filed 07/22/13 Page 10 of 44 Page ID#:2421


11/44

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

r el evant mar ket i s cor n snacks or t or t i l l a chi ps.

A. Trademark: TAKIS v. TACO-LITOS

I n or der t o show t r ademar k i nf r i ngement , t he pl ai nt i f f must

demonst r at e that t he def endant i s usi ng a mar k conf usi ngl y si mi l ar t oa val i d, pr ot ect abl e t r ademar k owned by t he pl ai nt i f f . Br ookf i el d

Commc ns, I nc. v. W. Coast Ent m t Corp. , 174 F. 3d 1036, 1046 ( 9t h Ci r .

1999) .

1. Validity

Regi st r at i on of a mar k pr ovi des const r uct i ve not i ce t hr oughout

t he Uni t ed St at es of t he r egi st r ant s cl ai m t o owner shi p and i s pr i ma

f aci e evi dence of val i di t y. 15 U. S. C. 1072, 1115; Par k N Fl y,

I nc. v. Dol l ar Par k & Fl y, I nc. , 469 U. S. 189, 202 ( 1985) . Wi t hi n

f i ve year s of r egi st r at i on, any per son who bel i eves t hat he i s or wi l l

be damaged by r egi st r at i on may seek t o cancel a mark. 15 U. S. C.

1064( a) . Par k N Fl y, 469 U. S. at 202. Af t er f i ve year s cont i nuous

use af t er r egi st r at i on, t he mar k becomes i ncont est abl e, whi ch means i t

i s concl usi vel y pr esumed ei t her t hat t he mar k i s nondescr i pt i ve, or i f

descr i pt i ve, has acqui r ed secondar y meani ng. I d. at 205; Au- Tomot i ve

Gol d v. Vol kswagen of Am. , 457 F. 3d 1062, 1072 (9t h Ci r . 2006)

( t r ademar ks t hat ar e r egi st er ed and i ncont est abl e ar e pr esumed val i d,

di st i nct i ve, and non- f unct i onal ) . I n ot her wor ds, a def endant f aced

wi t h an i ncont est abl e regi st ered mar k cannot def end by cl ai mi ng t hat

t he mar k i s i nval i d because i t i s descr i pt i ve and l acks secondar ymeani ng.

The par t i es do not di sput e t hat Pl ai nt i f f s have an i ncont est abl e

r egi st er ed t r ademar k i n t he wor d TAKI S f or f r i ed cor n snacks.

4( . . . cont i nued)i r r el evant . ( Decl ar at i on of Ci ndy Cadi t z 15- 16, Exs. 12- 13. )

11



12/44

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

( Mann, Ex. 1 at 142. ) Nor do t hey di sput e t hat t he TAKI S mark,

whi ch consi st s of t he wor d TAKI S wi t h a swi r l desi gn i nst ead of a

dot over t he l et t er i , i s r egi ster ed yet st i l l cont establ e. I d. at

144 ( r egi st er ed on J anuar y 3, 2012) . I nst ead, t he par t i es f ocus onwhet her TACO- LI TOS i s conf usi ngl y si mi l ar t o TAKI S.

2. Likelihood of Confusion

The t ouchst one of a Lanham Act cl ai m i s t he l i kel i hood of

consumer conf usi on, whi ch r equi r es t he f act f i nder t o det er mi ne

whet her a r easonabl y pr udent consumer i n t he mar ket pl ace i s l i kel y t o

be conf used as t o the or i gi n of t he good or servi ce bear i ng one of t he

mar ks. Sur f vi vor Medi a, I nc. v. Sur vi vor Pr ods. , 406 F. 3d 625, 630

( 9t h Ci r . 2005) . Li kel i hood of conf usi on i s det er mi ned by eval uat i ng

t he f ami l i ar f act or s out l i ned i n AMF I nc. v. Sl eekcraf t Boat s, 599

F. 2d 341, 34849 ( 9t h Ci r . 1979) : ( 1) st r engt h of t he mar ks; ( 2)

r el at edness of t he goods; ( 3) si mi l ar i t y of t he mar ks; ( 4) evi dence of

act ual conf usi on; ( 5) mar ket i ng channel s; ( 6) degr ee of consumer car e;

( 7) def endant s i nt ent i n sel ect i ng t he mar k; and ( 8) l i kel i hood of

expansi on of t he pr oduct l i nes. Sur f vi vor , 406 F. 3d at 631. [ T] hi s

ei ght - f actor t est f or l i kel i hood of conf usi on i s pl i ant , so t he

r el at i ve i mpor t ance of each i ndi vi dual f actor wi l l be case- speci f i c

and even a subset of t he f act or s coul d demonst r at e l i kel y conf usi on.

Br ookf i el d, 174 F. 3d at 1054.

Bot h si des t end t o conf l at e t he anal ysi s of t he pr oduct mar k wi t ht r ade dr ess and conf i gur at i on. I n t hi s sect i on, t he Cour t anal yzes

t he f act or s as t hey appl y t o t he word marks TAKI S and TACO- LI TOS

i n t hei r or der of i mpor t ance i n t hi s case.

a. Similarity of the Marks

The more si mi l ar t he marks i n terms of appear ance, sound, and

12



13/44

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

meani ng, t he gr eat er t he l i kel i hood of conf usi on. Net wor k

Aut omat i on, I nc. v. Advanced Sys. Concept s, I nc. , 638 F. 3d 1137, 1150

( 9t h Ci r . 2011) . I n eval uat i ng appear ance, sound, and meani ng, t he

Cour t f ol l ows t hr ee axi oms: f i r st , t he mar ks must be consi der ed i nt hei r ent i r et y and as t hey appear i n t he mar ket pl ace; second,

si mi l ar i t y i s adj udged i n t er ms of appear ance, sound, and meani ng; and

t hi r d, si mi l ar i t i es ar e wei ghed mor e heavi l y t han di f f er ences.

GoTo. com, I nc. v. Wal t Di sney Co. , 202 F. 3d 1199, 1206 ( 9t h Ci r .

2000) .

Si ght . The TAKI S mar k, as i t appear s i n t he mar ket pl ace, i s

wr i t t en i n yel l ow wi t h t he T capi t al i zed and t he remai nder of t he

l et t er s i n l ower case. As not ed i n t he t r ademar k r egi st r at i on, t her e

i s a swi r l i n pl ace of t he dot on t he i . Because i t i s a r el at i vel y

shor t wor d, TAKI S appear s t al l er on t he packagi ng; i t i s near l y

t wi ce t he hei ght of t he TACO- LI TOS mar k. I n cont r ast , TACO- LI TOS

i s wr i t t en i n an or ange hue i n al l caps and each l et t er i s necessar i l y

smal l er because of t he l engt h of t he wor d. Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue vi sual

si mi l ar i t y because bot h words commence wi t h TA and end wi t h S.

( Mem. at 17. ) The Cour t i s unconvi nced and f i nds t hat t he vi sual

si mi l ar i t y subf act or does not wei gh i n f avor of a l i kel i hood of

conf usi on.

Sound. As wi t h si ght , Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue aur al si mi l ar i t y because

bot h words begi n wi t h TA and end wi t h a vowel + S sound. ( Mem. at17. ) But TAKI S has onl y t wo syl l abl es compared t o TACO- LI TOS,

whi ch has f our . Thi s f act or al so wei ghs agai nst f i ndi ng l i kel y

conf usi on.

Meani ng. Al t hough t he TAKI S t r ademar k r egi st r at i on expr essl y

i ndi cat es t he word TAKI S has no meani ng i n a f orei gn l anguage ( Mann,

13



14/44

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Ex. 1 at 144) , Pl ai nt i f f s expl ai n t hat TAKI S uses t he Spani sh suf f i x

- I S, a di mi nut i ve, t o convey t he i dea of a l i t t l e t aco. ( Mem. at

17; Herr era 26. ) Def endant s add a di mi nut i ve - I TOS t o TACO t o

suggest a l i t t l e t aco. Def endant s sei ze on Pl ai nt i f f s expl anat i on t oar gue t hat Pl ai nt i f f s cannot pr event Def endant s or ot her compet i t or s

f r om usi ng a por t i on of a mar k t o descr i be a pr oduct . ( Opp. at 16-

17. ) Af t er r epr esent i ng t o t he PTO t hat TAKI S has no meani ng i n a

f or ei gn l anguage t o obt ai n t he t r ademar k, Pl ai nt i f f s cannot cr edi bl y

t ake t he opposi t e posi t i on t o suppor t a f i ndi ng of conf usi ng

si mi l ar i t y. The Cour t does not f i nd a l i kel i hood of conf usi on f or t he

meani ng sub- f actor .

I n sum, t he si ght , sound, and meani ng f actors wei gh agai nst

f i ndi ng a l i kel i hood of conf usi on.

b. Relatedness of the Goods

Under t hi s f act or , par t i es need not be di r ect compet i t or s, but

t he goods must be r easonabl y t hought by t he buyi ng publ i c t o come

f r om t he same source i f sol d under t he same mark. Rear den LLC v.

Rear den Commerce, I nc. , 683 F. 3d 1190, 1212 ( 9t h Ci r . 2012) ( i nt ernal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . The ul t i mat e quest i on i s whet her cust omer s

ar e l i kel y t o associ at e t he t wo pr oduct l i nes. Sur f vi vor , 406

F. 3d at 633.

I n t hi s case, t he par t i es do not di sput e t hat t hey ar e di r ect

compet i t or s. ( Mem. at 18. ) Based on t he TAKI S and TACO- LI TOS wordmar ks al one, i t i s unl i kel y t hat cust omer s woul d associ at e t he t wo

pr oduct s. For pur poses of t he l i kel i hood of conf usi on anal ysi s as i t

appl i es t o the wor d mar ks, t he f act or of r el at edness of t he goods

wei ghs agai nst f i ndi ng a l i kel i hood of conf usi on.

14



15/44

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

c. Strength of the Mark

The st r onger a mar k meani ng t he mor e l i kel y i t i s t o be

r emembered and associ ated i n t he publ i c mi nd wi t h t he mark s owner

t he gr eat er t he pr ot ect i on i t i s accor ded by t he t r ademar k l aws. Network Aut omat i on, 638 F. 3d at 1149. I n assessi ng a mark s st r engt h,

t he Cour t must anal yze both i t s concept ual and commerci al

st r engt h. I d. Concept ual st r engt h i nvol ves cl assi f yi ng t he mar k on

t he spect r um of di st i nct i veness, whi l e commer ci al st r engt h i s based on

act ual mar ket pl ace r ecogni t i on, i ncl udi ng adver t i si ng expendi t ur es.

I d.

The conceptual st r ength of a mar k i s det er mi ned by i t s pl acement

on a cont i nuum of mar ks f r om gener i c, af f or ded no pr ot ect i on; t hr ough

descr i pt i ve or suggest i ve, gi ven moder at e pr ot ect i on; t o ar bi t r ar y or

f anci f ul [ , ] awar ded maxi mum pr ot ect i on. E. & J . Gal l o Wi ner y v.

Gal l o Cat t l e, 967 F. 2d 1280, 1291 ( 9t h Ci r . 1992) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

Here, t he TAKI S mark has been i n use f or al most t en years. ( Mann Ex.

1 at 142. ) The mark does not mean anyt hi ng i n Engl i sh or Spani sh and

does not descr i be t he pr oduct , whi ch means i t i s l i kel y at l east

suggest i ve.

That sai d, t he quest i on i s whet her TAKI S di st i ngui shes

Pl ai nt i f f s goods f r om t hose of ot her s. Def endant s opposi t i on mi sses

t he mar k i n t hi s r egar d, f ocusi ng on t aco and t aqui t o product s and

ar gui ng t hat t he f i el d of t aco and t aqui t o- r el at ed mar ks i s ext r emel ycr owded. ( Opp. at 13- 14. ) But t he TAKI S word mark i s not synonymous

wi t h t acos or t aqui t os and i s t her ef or e not hemmed i n on al l

si des by si mi l ar mar ks on si mi l ar goods[ . ] Mi ss Wor l d ( UK) Lt d. v.

Mr s. Am. Pageant s, I nc. , 856 F. 2d 1445, 1449 ( 9t h Ci r . 1988) .

I n any event , t he TAKI S t r ademar k has achi eved i ncont est abl e

15



16/44

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

t r ademar k st at us, whi ch pr ecl udes Def endant s f r om chal l engi ng t he mar k

on t he gr ounds t hat i t i s not i nher ent l y di st i nct i ve or l acks

secondar y meani ng. Par k N Fl y, I nc. v. Dol l ar Par k & Fl y, I nc. , 469

U. S. 189, 205 ( 1985) ( concl udi ng t hat t he hol der of a regi st er ed mar kmay r el y on i ncont est abi l i t y to enj oi n i nf r i ngement and t hat such an

act i on may not be def ended on t he gr ounds t hat t he mark i s merel y

descr i pt i ve. ) . Thus, t he TAKI S mar k i s l i kel y at l east suggest i ve

and t her ef or e concept ual l y st r ong.

As t o t he par t i es compar at i ve commer ci al st r engt h, Pl ai nt i f f s

poi nt t o t he hundr eds of mi l l i ons of dol l ar s of sal es, and mi l l i ons of

dol l ar s of adver t i si ng spent on devel opi ng t he TAKI S mar k. ( Mem. at

18. ) Pl ai nt i f f s al so r ef er ence medi a ment i ons, i ncl udi ng t he 2012

vi r al vi deo, as evi dence of t he publ i c not or i et y t hat TAKI S has

achi eved i n t he Uni t ed St at es. ( Mem. at 19. ) Pl ai nt i f f s have

demonst r at ed a l i kel i hood of success t hat t hei r mar k i s commer ci al l y

st r ong.

d. Overlapping Marketing Channels

Conver gent mar ket i ng channel s i ncr ease t he l i kel i hood of

conf usi on. Net wor k Aut omat i on, 638 F. 3d at 1151. Her e, t her e i s

cl ear over l ap bet ween t he par t i es mar ket i ng channel s, whi ch wei ghs i n

f avor of a l i kel i hood of conf usi on. The Cour t does not at t r i but e much

wei ght t o t hi s f act or , however , because i t has not f ound t he mar ks

si mi l ar i n si ght , sound, and meani ng.e. Degree of Customer Care

Low consumer car e i ncr eases t he l i kel i hood of conf usi on. Net wor k

Aut omat i on, 638 F. 3d at 1152; Beer Nut s v. Cl over Cl ub Foods Co. , 805

F. 2d 920, 927 ( 10t h Ci r . 1986) ( i nexpensi ve snack f oods ar e i mpul se

i t ems and conf usi on i s mor e l i kel y) ; Fi j i Wat er Co. , LLC v. Fi j i

16



17/44

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Mi neral Water USA, LLC, 741 F. Supp. 2d 1165, 1180- 81 (C. D. Cal . 2010)

( pr emi um bot t l ed wat er i s l ow- cost , maki ng conf usi on mor e l i kel y) .

Gi ven t hat TAKI S and TACO- LI TOS are sol d at l ow cost and of t en l ocat ed

by check- out count er s, t he Cour t agr ees t hat t he snacks ar e l i kel y t obe an i mpul se buy. Thi s f act or i s accor ded l i t t l e wei ght , however ,

because the Cour t has f ound t hat t he mar ks ar e not si mi l ar . Thus,

even a consumer act i ng on i mpul se i s not l i kel y t o conf use t he two

pr oduct s.

f. Actual Confusion

Al t hough not r equi r ed, act ual conf usi on among si gni f i cant

number s of consumer s provi des st r ong suppor t f or t he l i kel i hood of

conf usi on. Network Aut omat i on, 638 F. 3d at 1151. The Cour t

appr eci at es t hat i t i s exceedi ngl y di f f i cul t t o det ect i nst ances of

act ual conf usi on when . . . t he goods ar e r el at i vel y i nexpensi ve and

t hei r act ual pr oper t i es ar e exact l y i dent i cal . Beer Nut s, 805 F. 2d

at 928.

Pl ai nt i f f s accuse Def endant s of car ef ul l y mi x[ i ng] TACO- LI TOS

wi t h TAKI S pr oduct s on Bar cel - br anded r acks. ( Fi guer oa Decl . 5- 6,

Ex. 1. ) Pl ai nt i f f s poi nt t o t he decl ar at i on of a Bar cel f i el d

mar ket i ng manager who st at es t hat a st or e cl er k at a gr ocer y st or e i n

Sal i nas, Cal i f or ni a t hought TACO- LI TOS was f r om Bar cel and a st or e

f l oor manager who al so t hought TACO- LI TOS was a Barcel pr oduct . I d.

8- 9. Pl ai nt i f f s ci t e si mi l ar exampl es f r om a Kwi k E Mar t i nCol t on, Cal i f or ni a, a P&M Super mar ket and El Tepeyac gr ocer y st or e i n

New J er sey, and a 7- El even i n Texas. ( Her r er a Decl . , Ex. 8. )

Def endant s cl ai m such decl ar at i ons are hear say, t hat Def endant s

do not and cannot cont r ol pl acement of TACO- LI TOS i n st ores, and t hat

t he st or e owner or di st r i but or det er mi nes wher e and how t o di spl ay

17



18/44

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

pr oduct s. ( Levi n Decl . 19- 24. ) The Cour t agr ees t hat Pl ai nt i f f s

pr of er r ed decl ar at i ons f r om empl oyees based on conver sat i ons t hey

pur por t edl y had wi t h cl erks and st ore managers ar e hear say and do not

evi dence conf usi on among consumers. Sharper I mage Corp. v. Tar getCorp. , 425 F. Supp. 2d 1056, 1073 ( N. D. Cal . 2006) ( sworn st atement s of

pl ai nt i f f s r et ai l er s not pr obat i ve evi dence of secondar y meani ng i n

mi nds of consumers) .

On Repl y, Pl ai nt i f f s i nt r oduce t wo i nst ances of consumer s who

have pur por t edl y expr essed conf usi on on soci al medi a si t es:

Pi ctur e of TACO- LI TOS bag wi t h capt i on: Bought

t hese t hi nki ng i t was Taxi s [ si c] / . - #t hest r uggl e#t acol i t os. ( Decl ar at i on of Tr acey Gi er t z, Ex.1. )

Pi ctur e of TACO- LI TOS bag wi t h capt i on: Thesear en t TAKI S?! ? #f aket aki s #somad. I d.

Pl ai nt i f f s of f er t wo mor e exampl es i n t hei r suppl ement al

br i ef :

Pi ct ur e of TACO- LI TOS bag wi t h capt i on: Wt f ?! Ial most got exci t ed at my j ob cuz I t hought t heysol d #Taki s. . . Smh #FakeTaki s ( Gi er t z Supp.Decl . , Ex. 1. )

Pi ct ur e of TACO- LI TOS bag wi t h capt i on: Taki sl i l br ot her #t acol i t os #spi cy I d.

Al t hough t her e i s no l egal r equi r ement f or act ual consumer

conf usi on at t hi s stage, t he Cour t i s not sat i sf i ed t hat Pl ai nt i f f s

have shown act ual conf usi on based on f our soci al medi a comment s and

t he absence of consumer compl ai nt s t o Pl ai nt i f f s.g. Intent

The knowi ng adopt i on of a cl osel y si mi l ar mar k used by anot her i s

a basi s f or i nf er r i ng i nt ent t o decei ve t he publ i c, whi ch i s st r ong

evi dence of a l i kel i hood of conf usi on. Fi j i Wat er Co. , 741 F. Supp.

2d at 1181. However , t he i nt ent f act or car r i es onl y mi ni mal wei ght

18



19/44

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

because an i nt ent t o conf use cust omer s i s not r equi r ed f or a f i ndi ng

of t r ademar k i nf r i ngement . GoTo. com, 202 F. 3d at 1208.

Pl ai nt i f f s ar gument about mi xi ng bags of TACO- LI TOS on

Pl ai nt i f f s shel f di spl ays or cl i p s tr i ps i s a red herr i ng.Pl ai nt i f f s hear say st at ement s f r om t hei r f i el d manager s t hat t hey

spoke wi t h st ore managers who saw TACO- LI TOS sal es r epr esent at i ves

del i ber at el y pl ace TACO- LI TOS on shel ves wi t h TAKI S ar e of f set by

Def endant s decl ar at i ons i ndi cat i ng t hat t he stor es deci de wher e to

di spl ay t he pr oduct s. ( Compar e Decl arat i on of Geor ge Zaval a 25 wi t h

Decl ar at i on of Kewal Kr i shan 5- 7. ) Pl ai nt i f f s have no pr oof t hat

Def endant s wer e responsi bl e f or i nt er mi ngl i ng t he pr oduct s.

Pl ai nt i f f s t hen ar gue t hat t hei r pr i or not i f i cat i on t o Snak- Ki ng

of t hei r r i ght s i n Spr i ng 2012over si x mont hs bef or e Snak- Ki ng

r el eased TACO- LI TOSpr oves t hat t he devel opment and l aunch of t he

TACO- LI TOS chi ps and packagi ng comes wi t h f ul l knowl edge of

Pl ai nt i f f s r i ght s[ . ] ( Repl y at 9. ) As i de f rom t he f act that thi s

posi t i on cl ear l y weakens Pl ai nt i f f s no del ay ar gument ( di scussed i n

Sect i on I I I . D bel ow) , Pl ai nt i f f s wer e cl ear l y on not i ce of Def endant s

pl an t o begi n pr oduci ng and market i ng TACO- LI TOS i n ear l y 2012.

Pl ai nt i f f s f ai l ed t o f ol l ow t hr ough on t hei r di scussi ons wi t h Snak-

Ki ng on t hi s i ssue. ( Cadi t z Decl . 10. ) As such, t he Cour t i s not

pr epar ed t o f i nd i nt ent t o decei ve.

h. Expansion of Product Lines

The expansi on of product l i nes f act or does not car r y much wei ght

her e because t he par t i es al r eady di r ect l y compet e. See Net wor k

Aut omat i on, 638 F. 3d at 1153 ( f i ndi ng expansi on f act or uni mpor t ant

because par t i es al r eady di r ect l y compet ed) . Ther ef or e, t hi s f act or

has l i t t l e i mpact on t he l i kel i hood of conf usi on.

19



20/44

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

i. Summary of Sleekcraft Factors

Despi t e t he f act t hat t he maj or i t y of t he Sl eekcraf t f act or s

f avor Pl ai nt i f f s, t he Cour t f i nds t hat t hose f actor s ar e l ess

i mpor t ant i n t hi s case, wher e the mar ks ar e so di ssi mi l ar i n si ght ,sound, and meani ng. Sl eekcr af t , 599 F. 2d 341, 348- 49 ( 9t h Ci r . 1979)

( [ T] he r el at i ve i mpor t ance of each f actor wi l l be case- speci f i c . . .

[ and] i t i s of t en possi bl e t o r each a concl usi on wi t h r espect t o

l i kel i hood of conf usi on af t er consi der i ng onl y a subset of t he

f act or s. ) . Thus, t he Cour t f i nds i t i s unl i kel y t hat consumer s woul d

be conf used bet ween the t r ademark TAKI S and TACO- LI TOS.

3. Conclusion on the Merits

Under t he ci r cumst ances, Pl ai nt i f f s have not demonst r at ed a

l i kel i hood of pr evai l i ng on t he mer i t s of t hei r t r ademar k

i nf r i ngement cl ai m as t o t he TAKI S and TACO- LI TOS marks.

B. Trade Dress (Product Configuration)

Tr ade dr ess i ncl udes t he shape and desi gn of t he pr oduct

i t sel f . Wal - Mar t St or es, I nc. v. Samar a Br ot her s, I nc. , 529 U. S. 205

( 2000) ( t r ade dr ess i s a cat egor y that or i gi nal l y i ncl uded onl y the

packagi ng or dr essi ng of a pr oduct , but i n r ecent year s has been

expanded by many court s of appeal t o encompass t he desi gn of a

pr oduct . ) . To asser t a cl ai m f or t r ade dr ess i nf r i ngement based on

pr oduct conf i gur at i on ( al so r ef er r ed t o as pr oduct shape) , t he

f ol l owi ng el ement s must be met : ( 1) a val i d t r ade dr ess shape that i sr ecogni zed by cust omer s t o i dent i f y and di st i ngui sh sour ce; ( 2) t he

shape i s non- f unct i onal ; and ( 3) t he accused pr oduct cr eat es a

l i kel i hood of conf usi on as t o sour ce, sponsor shi p, connect i on or

appr oval because of t he si mi l ar shape or desi gn. McCar t hy, 7: 54.

Because Pl ai nt i f f s have a f eder al r egi st r at i on, t he bur den of pr oof on

20



21/44

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

t he f i r st t wo el ement s val i di t y and f unct i onal i t y shi f t s t o

Def endant s. 15 U. S. C. 1115( a) , ( b) .

1. Validity

As di scussed i n Sect i on I I I . A. 1 above, r egi st r at i on of a mar k i spr i ma f aci e evi dence of val i di t y. 15 U. S. C. 1072, 1115; Par k N

Fl y, I nc. v. Dol l ar Par k & Fl y, I nc. , 469 U. S. 189, 202 ( 1985) . The

pr oduct conf i gur at i on t r ade dr ess r egi st r at i on i s dat ed December 26,

2006 and has become i ncont est abl e. ( Mann Decl . , Ex. 1 at 161; 15

U. S. C. 1065. ) The i ncont est abi l i t y of t he mar k pr ecl udes Def endant s

f r om chal l engi ng t he val i di t y of t he mar k on t he gr ounds t hat i t i s

not i nher ent l y di st i nct i ve and l acks secondar y meani ng. I d. However ,

an i ncont est abl e mark may be cancel ed at any t i me on cer t ai n speci f i ed

gr ounds, i ncl udi ng t hat ( 1) i t was obt ai ned f r audul ent l y, ( 2) i t has

become gener i c, ( 3) i t has been abandoned by t he regi st r ant , or ( 4)

t he mar k i s f unct i onal . 15 U. S. C. 1064( c) , 1115( b) ( 1) , ( 2) & ( 8) .

Def endant bear s t he bur den of est abl i shi ng one of t he speci f i ed

gr ounds f or cancel l at i on of t he i ncont est abl e mar k.

a. Fraud

Fr aud i s an enumer at ed st at ut or y except i on t o an i ncont est abl e

t r ademar k r egi st r at i on. 15 U. S. C. 1115( b) . To pr ove f r aud on t he

PTO, Def endant s must show a f al se r epr esent at i on r egardi ng a mater i al

f act , t he r egi st r ant s knowl edge or bel i ef t hat t he r epr esent at i on i s

f al se, t he i nt ent t o i nduce r el i ance upon t he mi sr epr esent at i on andr easonabl e r el i ance t her eon, and damages pr oxi mat el y r esul t i ng f r om

t he r el i ance. Robi v. Fi ve Pl at t er s, I nc. , 918 F. 2d 1439, 1444 ( 9t h

Ci r . 1990) . Fr aud must be pr oven by cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence and

[ t ] her e i s no r oom f or specul at i on, i nf er ence or sur mi se. Spi n

Mast er Lt d. v. Zobmondo Ent m t LLC, 778 F. Supp. 2d 1052, 1061 ( C. D.

21



22/44

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Cal . 2011) .

Def endant s asser t t hat Bi mbo s cl ai m i n a J ul y 2006 PTO f i l i ng

t hat i t made subst ant i al l y excl usi ve use of t he mar k i n U. S. commer ce

si nce at l east November 2000 was f r audul ent . ( Supp. Cadi t z Decl . 5, Ex. 3. ) They at t ach St atement of Use document s submi t t ed t o t he

PTO by Fr i t o- Lay i n 2004, whi ch t hey cl ai m evi dence t he exi st ence of

Fr i t o- Lay s DORI TOS ROLLI TOS dur i ng t he same t i me per i od. ( Supp.

Cadi t z Decl . 6, Ex. 4. ) Pepsi Co di scont i nued DORI TOS ROLLI TOS i n

2005 ( Gi er t z Decl . 5, Ex. 4) and Pl ai nt i f f s obt ai ned t hei r pr oduct

conf i gur at i on t r ademark i n December 2006. ( Mann Ex. 1 at 161. )

Pl ai nt i f f s r espond that t he unsworn st atement was made by Bi mbo s

out si de counsel , was not mat er i al t o the PTO i n gr ant i ng t he

r egi st r at i on, and t hat one ot her user does not i nval i dat e a

subst ant i al l y excl usi ve cl ai m. ( Repl y at 17- 18. ) On t hi s r ecor d,

and gi ven Def endant s bur den of pr oof , t he Cour t i s not pr epar ed t o

f i nd t hat Bi mbo s r epr esent at i on of subst ant i al l y excl usi ve use of

t he mar k amount s t o f r aud on t he PTO.

b. Generic

Per haps t he cl ear est t est f or gener i cness i s t he Who ar e

youWhat are you? t est . McCart hy, 12: 1 ( 4t h ed. 2011) . A mark

answers t he buyer s quest i on Who are you? I n r esponse to t he

quest i on What ar e you? many compet i t i ve goods or servi ces wi l l gi ve

t he same gener i c answer r egar dl ess of sour ce of or i gi n. Mar ks t hatconst i t ut e a common descr i pt i ve name ar e r ef er r ed t o as gener i c. . .

. ( Ci t at i on omi t t ed. ) Gener i c t er ms ar e not r egi st r abl e, and a

r egi st ered mark may be cancel ed at any t i me on t he gr ounds t hat i t has

become gener i c. . . . Par k N Fl y, I nc. v. Dol l ar Par k & Fl y, I nc. ,

469 U. S. 189, 194 ( 1985) ; Reno Ai r Raci ng Ass n, I nc. v. McCor d, 452

22



23/44

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

F. 3d 1126, 1135 ( 2006) ( [ R] egi st ered marks are endowed wi t h a st r ong

pr esumpt i on of val i di t y, and a def endant has t he bur den of showi ng

gener i cness by a pr eponderance of t he evi dence. ) .

Def endant s have not met t hei r bur den because t he t aqui t o chi pshape i s not a common shape i n t he t or t i l l a chi p i ndust r y. See Bi g

I sl and Candi es, I nc. v. Cooki e Cor ner , 269 F. Supp. 2d 1236, 1243 ( D.

Haw. 2003) ( f i ndi ng Hawai i an shor t br ead cooki e di agonal l y di pped i n

chocol at e gener i c af t er r evi ewi ng evi dence t hat ver y si mi l ar cooki es

are commonl y made and sol d, bot h i n Hawai i and el sewhere i n t he Uni t ed

St at es) ; Mal aco Leaf , AB v. Pr omot i on i n Mot i on, I nc. , 287 F. Supp. 2d

355, 364 ( S. D. N. Y. 2003) ( concl udi ng Swedi sh Fi sh gummy candy was

gener i c af t er not i ng exampl es of 69 t hi r d- par t y uses of gummy f i sh-

shaped desi gns) . I n addi t i on t o Def endant s and t he pr i vat e l abel s

t hey suppl y, t he onl y ot her manuf act ur er of t he t aqui t o chi p i n t hi s

pr oduct conf i gur at i on i s Fr i t o- Lay, whose r i ght t o use t he

conf i gur at i on i s addr essed i n mor e det ai l bel ow. The l ack of

pr eval ence of t hi s par t i cul ar shape i n t he i ndust r y mi l i t at es agai nst

a f i ndi ng of gener i cness.

Mor eover , t he t aqui t o chi p pr oduct conf i gur at i on i s not such a

basi c or necessary f ormat t hat no one shoul d have a t r ade dr ess

monopol y on i t [ . ] Bi g I sl and Candi es, I nc. , 269 F. Supp. 2d at 1243.

Pl ai nt i f f s i ncl ude sever al exampl es of al t er nat i ve t or t i l l a chi p

shapes t o show t hat compet i t ors do not need t o use t he t aqui t o chi ppr oduct conf i gur at i on t o be compet i t i ve. ( Decl ar at i on of Rober t o

Cayetano Guzman Tel l o 11, Ex. 1 [Bokados Enr e- 2 pr oduct wi t h a bow-

t i e shape] & Ex. 2 [ Sabr i t as Tur bos pr oduct wi t h a scr ew shape] . )

The Cour t f i nds t hat Def endant s have not shown t hat t he TAKI S

pr oduct conf i gur at i on i s gener i c i n t he cor n snack/ t or t i l l a chi p

23



24/44

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

i ndust r y.

c. Functionality

A pr ot ect abl e t r ade dr ess must be non- f unct i onal . Funct i onal

f eat ur es of a pr oduct ar e t hose t hat ar e essent i al t o t he use orpur pose of t he ar t i cl e or . . . af f ect t he cost or qual i t y of t he

ar t i cl e. Tr af Fi x Devi ces, 532 U. S. 23, 32 ( 2001) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

To det er mi ne whet her a product s t r ade dress i s f unct i onal , t he Ni nth

Ci r cui t has set out f our f act or s, none of whi ch i s di sposi t i ve: ( 1)

whet her t he t r ade dr ess yi el ds a ut i l i t ar i an advant age; ( 2) whet her

al t er nat i ve desi gns ar e avai l abl e; ( 3) whet her adver t i si ng t out s t he

ut i l i t ar i an advant ages of t he desi gn; and ( 4) whet her t he par t i cul ar

desi gn r esul t s f r om a compar at i vel y si mpl e or i nexpensi ve met hod of

manuf act ur e. Di sc Gol f Ass n, I nc. v. Champi on Di scs, I nc. , 158 F. 3d

1002, 1005 ( 9t h Ci r . 1998) . I f t he t r ade dr ess i s regi st er ed, t he

r egi st r at i on i s pr esumpt i ve evi dence of non- f unct i onal i t y and t he

bur den of showi ng f unct i onal i t y i s on t he def endant .

i. Utilitarian Advantages

Feder al cour t s i n t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t have f ound t hat t r ade dr ess

f eat ur es have ut i l i t ar i an advant ages when t hey af f ect t he cost or

qual i t y of t he pr oduct or t he f eat ur es ar e t he act ual benef i t t hat

t he consumer wi shes t o pur chase, as di st i ngui shed f r om an assur ance

t hat t he par t i cul ar ent i t y made, sponsored, or endor sed a pr oduct .

Fi j i Wat er , 741 F. Supp. 2d 1165, 1173, ci t i ng Leat her man Tool Gr oup v.Cooper I ndus. , I nc. , 199 F. 3d 1009, 1011- 12 ( 9t h Ci r . 1999) .

I n t hi s case, t he t aqui t o chi p shape does not pr ovi de ut i l i t ar i an

advant ages over ot her t or t i l l a chi p or corn snack shapes. The

benef i t s ci t ed by Def endant s coul d be sai d of al l t or t i l l a chi ps:

super i or crunch, i mpr oved st r engt h, f l avor r et ent i on, and t he abi l i t y

24



25/44

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

t o be di pped and r et ai n di p. ( Levi n Decl . 11. ) One woul d be har d-

pr essed t o f i nd a soggy, weak, f l avor l ess cor n snack. The benef i t s of

a r ol l ed snack pi ece ar e t her ef or e not uni que t o t hi s pr oduct

conf i gur at i on. Thus, t he Cour t f i nds t hat Pl ai nt i f f s ar e l i kel y t osucceed on t he mer i t s of t hei r ar gument t hat t hei r pr oduct

conf i gur at i on i s non- f unct i onal .

ii. Alternative Designs, Advertising, and Methodof Manufacture

As expl ai ned i n connect i on wi t h gener i cness ( Sect i on I I I . B. 1. b

above) , t he mar ket i s f l ush wi t h al t er nat i ve, di ssi mi l ar snack shapes.

( See, e. g. , Cayet ano Decl . 11, Ex. 1 [ Bokados Enr e- 2 pr oduct wi t h a

bow- t i e shape] & Ex. 2 [ Sabr i t as Tur bos pr oduct wi t h a scr ew shape] . )

I n addi t i on, Def endant s have not shown t hat Bar cel s adver t i si ng

t out s any ut i l i t ar i an benef i t s of t he TAKI S pr oduct conf i gur at i on.

See Fi j i Wat er , 741 F. Supp. 2d at 1175 ( f i ndi ng one ar t i cl e r epor t i ng

t hat t he FI J I squar e bot t l e shape was desi gned t o save shi ppi ng cost s

was i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t a f i ndi ng of f unct i onal i t y) .

Fi nal l y, t he TAKI S pr oduct conf i gur at i on i s cl ear l y mor e

di f f i cul t t o manuf actur e t han a t r adi t i onal cor n chi p. Pl ai nt i f f s

expl ai n t hat t hey f i r st chose t he shape, t hen f i gur ed out how t o make

i t . ( Cayet ano Decl . 12. ) The quest i on i s not whet her Def endant s

woul d need to expend resour ces t o remove t he cur ved edge f r om t he

t aqui t o chi p ( Opp. at 8) , but whet her t he desi gn achi eves economi es

i n manuf act ur e or use. I nt er nat i onal J ensen, I nc. v. Met r osound

U. S. A. , I nc. , 4 F. 3d 819, 823 ( 9t h Ci r . 1993) . The Cour t f i nds t hat

t he pr oduct conf i gur at i on i s non- f unct i onal . 5

5 The Cour t , havi ng determi ned t hat Def endant s have notdemonst r at ed aest het i c f unct i onal i t y as t o pr oduct conf i gur at i on, wi l l


25



26/44

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

d. Naked Licensing or Consent to Use as TrademarkAbandonment

Two Ni nth Ci r cui t deci si ons provi de a hel pf ul i nt r oduct i on t o

naked l i censi ng of t r ademar ks. Bar camer i ca I nt l USA Tr ust v.

Tyf i el d I mpor t er s, I nc. , 289 F. 3d 589, 595- 96 ( 9t h Ci r . 2002)

( af f i r mi ng cancel l at i on of pl ai nt i f f s regi st r at i on of mar k because

pl ai nt i f f engaged i n naked l i censi ng) ; Freecycl eSunnyval e v. Freecycl e

Net wor k, 626 F. 3d 509, ( 9t h Ci r . 2010) ( af f i r mi ng gr ant of summar y

j udgment wher e pl ai nt i f f demonst r at ed def endant engaged i n naked

l i censi ng and consequent l y abandoned t r ademar ks) . I t i s wel l -

est abl i shed t hat [ a] t r ademark owner may gr ant a l i cense and r emai n

pr ot ect ed pr ovi ded qual i t y cont r ol of t he goods and ser vi ces sol d

under t he t r ademar k by the l i censee i s mai nt ai ned. Bar camer i ca, 289

F. 3d at 595- 96 ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ; Freecycl e, 626 F. 3d at 515.

Naked l i censi ng occur s when t he l i censor f ai l s t o exer ci se

adequat e qual i t y cont r ol over t he l i censee. Freecycl e, 626 F. 3d at

515. Naked l i censi ng may r esul t i n t he t r ademar k s ceasi ng t o

f unct i on as a symbol of qual i t y and a cont r ol l ed sour ce. I d. , ci t i ng

McCar t hy 18: 48. Naked l i censi ng i s inherently deceptive and

const i t ut es abandonment of any r i ght s t o t he t r ademark by the

l i censor . I d. Once a t r ademark owner has abandoned t he t r ademark,

t he owner i s est opped f r om assert i ng r i ght s t o t he t r ademar k. I d.

5( . . . cont i nued)not di scuss t hi s ar cane t heor y i n det ai l . Once t he r el evantcompet i t i ve mar ket i s def i ned t o i ncl ude t or t i l l a chi ps and cor nsnacks, i t becomes cl ear t hat t her e ar e many al t ernat i ve shapesavai l abl e, i ncl udi ng r ol l ed, unr ol l ed, f l at , r ound, spi r al s , bow- t i es,t r i angul ar , and scoops. ( Repl y at 16. ) Unl i ke t he novel t y i t ems t hathave been f ound aest het i cal l y f unct i onal ( e.g., hear t - shaped box,di st i nct i ve t ypef ace, pengui n- shaped cockt ai l shaker ) , Def endant s havenot shown that consumer s pur chase t aqui t o chi ps f or t hei r aest het i cval ue.

26



27/44

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Such abandonment i s pur el y an i nvol unt ar y f or f ei t ur e of t r ademar k

r i ght s, f or i t need not be shown t hat t he t r ademar k owner had any

subj ect i ve i nt ent t o abandon t he mark. Barcamer i ca, 289 F. 3d at 596,

ci t i ng McCar t hy 18: 48. The pr oponent of a naked l i cense t heor yf aces a st r i ngent st andar d of pr oof . I d. ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

Def endants ar gue t hat Bi mbo abandoned any t r ademark i n i t s

pr oduct conf i gur at i on by per mi t t i ng Fr i t o- Lay to use i t s exact pr oduct

conf i gur at i on wi t hout adequat e qual i t y cont r ol , gi vi ng r i se t o a naked

l i cense. ( Supp. Mem. at 3- 4. )

[REDACTED]

Pl ai nt i f f s r espond t hat t her e i s no naked l i cense because

Mexi can l aw suppl i es an i mpl i ed l i cense wi t h a qual i t y cont r ol

st andar d that i s enf or ceabl e regar dl ess of whet her t he agr eement

cont ai ns an expr ess l i cense. ( Mem. at 3- 7. ) Pl ai nt i f f s submi t t he

decl ar at i on of Hor aci o Rangel , a l i censed Mexi can l awyer , i n suppor t

of t hei r cl ai ms and asser t i ons based on Mexi can l aw. Mr . Rangel s

decl ar at i on, however , i s f ul l of l egal concl usi ons unsuppor t ed by

r ef er ence t o Mexi can st at ut or y l aw, case l aw, or ot her aut hor i t y.

I nst ead, Mr . Rangel at t empt s t o convi nce t he Cour t by si mpl y repeat i ng

each l egal concl usi on sever al t i mes t hr oughout hi s l engt hy

decl ar at i on.

Def endant s pr ovi de numer ous r easons why t he agr eement cannot be a

val i d i mpl i ed l i cense. Fi r st , t hey poi nt t o t he decl ar at i on ofBi mbo s I nt el l ect ual Pr oper t y Manager [ . ] [REDACTED]6 The Car denas

6 The Cour t DENIES Pl ai nt i f f s ex par t e appl i cat i on t o amend t heCar denas decl ar at i on[ . ] [REDACTED] ( Docket No. 90. ) Bi mbo pr ovi des nol egi t i mat e j ust i f i cat i on f or i t s l ast mi nut e at t empt t o change swor nt est i mony t o r ebut Def endant s ar gument . The Cour t not es i t s


27



28/44

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

decl ar at i on makes no di st i nct i on bet ween expr ess or i mpl i ed l i censes.

Ther ef or e, Bi mbo has al r eady di scl ai med any ot her l i censes f or t he

TAKI S product conf i gur at i on i n t hi s l i t i gat i on.

Second, Def endant s submi t t he Decl arat i on of Gaspar Zaval a, al i censed Mexi can l awyer , t o r ebut Mr . Rangel s decl ar at i on. Mr .

Zaval a opi nes t hat a l i cense under Mexi can l aw r equi r es ( 1)

i dent i f i cat i on of t he par t i es wi t h t hei r expr ess consent , ( 2) speci f i c

i dent i f i cat i on of t he l i censed mar ks, and ( 3) a wr i t i ng t o evi dence

t he i nt ent t o ent er a l i cense. ( Zaval a Decl . 12( a) - ( c) . )

[REDACTED]

Fi nal l y, Def endant s ar gue that Bi mbo has not r ecor ded t he

set t l ement agr eement wi t h t he Mexi can I nst i t ut e of I ndust r i al Pr oper t y

( si mi l ar t o t he PTO) despi t e t he f act t hat Bi mbo has r ecor ded l i cense

agr eement s wi t h over 560 r egi st r at i ons t o dat e. ( Zaval a Decl . 16-

17. ) The Cour t i s persuaded t hat Bi mbo knows how t o cr eat e a l i cense

when i t chooses.

The Cour t f i nds Def endant s cont ent i ons r ai se ser i ous quest i ons

about whet her Pl ai nt i f f s can pr evai l on t hei r t heor y that t he

set t l ement agr eement i s a l i cense. 7 Never t hel ess, t he Cour t i s

6( . . . cont i nued)di sappr oval of t hi s t acti c.

7 I n response t o Def endant s argument s r egardi ng the absence ofqual i t y cont r ol r esul t i ng i n t r ademar k abandonment , Pl ai nt i f f s of f er

an al t er nat i ve t heor y t hat t he agr eement coul d be const r ued as aconsent agr eement . The Cour t or der ed Pl ai nt i f f s t o f i l e suppl ement albr i ef i ng on whether Bi mbo i nt ended t he agr eement t o be a l i cense orconsent agr eement . ( Docket No. 77. ) Pl ai nt i f f s suppl ement al br i efst ood behi nd i t s char act er i zat i on of t he agr eement as a l i cense, butsought t o r eserve t hei r r i ght t o ar gue consent gi ven t hat di scover ywas st i l l i n i t s ear l y st ages. Pl ai nt i f f s, however , poi nt t o nodi scover y t hat woul d assi st i n r esol vi ng t he quest i on of what Bi mboi nt ended t he agr eement t o be. Af t er al l , Bi mbo does not need t o


28



29/44

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

hesi t ant t o char act er i ze t he agr eement as a naked l i cense because i t

r equi r es Pepsi Co t o, among ot her t hi ngs, sel l i t s pr oduct i n non-

conf usi ng packagi ng. ( Mem. at 4, n. 4. ) Thus, t her e can be no wor r y

t hat Pepsi Co s use of t he pr oduct conf i gur at i on woul d somehow damagePl ai nt i f f s r eput at i on or goodwi l l by creat i ng an associ at i on bet ween

Pepsi Co s pr oduct and Pl ai nt i f f s.

Rat her , t he Cour t f i nds i t mor e l i kel y that t he agr eement i s a

consent t o use because Pl ai nt i f f s have consent ed t o Pepsi Co s use of

t hei r product conf i gur at i on. The danger i n al l owi ng ot her s t o use

one s pr oduct conf i gur at i on wi t hout at t r i but i on, however , i s t he r i sk

t hat such an agr eement suggest s t her e i s no l i kel i hood of conf usi on

wi t h r espect t o pr oduct conf i gur at i on. See, e. g. , Ver sa Pr ods. Co. v.

Bi f ol d Co. Lt d. , 50 F. 3d 189, 216 ( 3d Ci r . 1995) , cer t . deni ed, 516

U. S. 808, 116 S. Ct . 54, 133 L. Ed. 2d 19 ( 1995) ( The use of pr i vat e

l abel i ng under mi nes a cl ai m t hat a pr oduct ' s appear ance denot es i t s

sour ce, because consumer s wi l l be l ess l i kel y t o associ at e t he

mul t i f ar i ousl y l abel ed pr oduct wi t h a single sour ce. ) ( emphasi s i n

or i gi nal ) . McCar t hy expl ai ns t he pr obl em wel l :

What i f , i n r esponse t o def endant s ar gument of noconf usi on based on t he consent gi ven to another ,pl ai nt i f f r esponds by ar gui ng t hat t he useconsent ed t o was al so i nf r i ngi ng? I n t hat event ,t he agr eement must have been a l i cense devoi d ofqual i t y cont r ol . Thus, a t r ademar k owner shoul davoi d consent i ng t o conduct whi ch everyone el sesees as i nf r i ngi ng act i vi t y. The mar k owner may

f i nd t hat by doi ng so, i t has hemmed i t sel f i nwi t h r espect t o f ut ur e l i t i gat i on.

McCar t hy 18: 81.

Ul t i mat el y, t he exi st ence of Fr i t o- Lay s DI NAMI TAS st r ongl y

7( . . . cont i nued)conduct di scover y t o det er mi ne i t s own i nt ent . ( Docket No. 89 at 1. )

29



30/44

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

suggest s Pl ai nt i f f s have abandoned t hei r pr oduct conf i gur at i on or , at

l east , have wai ved or ar e est opped f r om cl ai mi ng a l i kel i hood of

conf usi on based on pr oduct conf i gur at i on. Uni ver sal Ci t y St udi os,

I nc. v. Ni nt endo Co. , Lt d. , 578 F. Supp. 911, 929( S. D. N. Y. 1983)( Whet her const r ued as a l i cense or a covenant not t o sue, t he

agr eement s pur por t t o aut hor i ze t he use of a Uni ver sal mar k. The

ext ensi ve uncont r ol l ed use of t he mar k i ndi cat es ei t her Uni ver sal s

abandonment of t hat mar k or t he i nabi l i t y of t he mar k t o desi gnat e a

si ngl e sour ce of or i gi n t o consumer s. ) . On t hi s recor d, t he Cour t

cannot say that Pl ai nt i f f s have a l i kel i hood of success i n pr evai l i ng

on t hei r pr oduct conf i gur at i on i nf r i ngement cl ai m.

2. Likelihood of Confusion

As wi t h t he t r ademar k cl ai m, Pl ai nt i f f s must show t hat cust omer s

or ot her s wi l l l i kel y be conf used as t o sour ce, sponsor shi p,

connect i on or appr oval because of t he si mi l ar shape or desi gn of

Def endant s pr oduct . Nabi sco Br ands, I nc. v. Conusa Cor p. , 722 F.

Supp. 1287 ( M. D. N. C. 1989) , af f d wi t hout op. , 892 F. 2d 74 ( 4t h Ci r .

1989) , r epor t ed i n f ul l , 14 U. S. P. Q. 2d 1324 ( 4t h Ci r . 1989) ( gr ant i ng

pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on agai nst sal e of candy whose shape was vi r t ual l y

i dent i cal t o LI FESAVERS because of t he l i kel i hood t hat consumer s wi l l

connect any candy pr oduct shaped l i ke a l i f esaver t o be made by

Li f esaver s) . The Cour t acknowl edges t hat not al l of t he Sl eekcr af t

f act or s wi l l be appr opr i at e f or or f unct i on t he same way wi t h r espectt o t r ade dr ess as appl i ed t o a pr oduct conf i gur at i on. Never t hel ess,

t he f act or s hel p t o det er mi ne whet her conf usi on i s l i kel y.

a. Similarity of the Product Configuration

Unl i ke t r ademar ks or packagi ng t r ade dr ess, i n a pr oduct

conf i gur at i on t r ade dr ess i nf r i ngement case,

30



31/44

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

consumer s do not have t o rel y on a potent i al l ydi st i nct i ve conf i gur at i on t o i dent i f y t he sour ceof t he pr oduct ; r at her , t hey can gener al l y l ook t ot he packagi ng, t r ademar ks, and adver t i si ng used t omar ket t he pr oduct , whi ch ar e t ypi cal l y much l essambi guous. Consumers t heref ore have l ess need, and

so ar e much l ess l i kel y, t o r el y on a pr oductconf i gur at i on as an i ndi cat or of t he pr oduct ssour ce. Accor di ngl y, t hey ar e l ess l i kel y t o beconf used as t o the sour ces of t wo pr oduct s wi t hsubst ant i al l y si mi l ar conf i gur at i ons.

Ver sa Pr ods. Co. v. Bi f ol d Co. Lt d. , 50 F. 3d 189, 202- 03 ( 3d Ci r .

1995) , cer t . deni ed, 516 U. S. 808, 116 S. Ct . 54, 133 L. Ed. 2d 19

( 1995) , ci t ed wi t h appr oval i n Leat her man Tool Gr oup, I nc. v. Cooper

I ndus. , 199 F. 3d 1009, 1013 (9t h Ci r . 1999) .

I n thi s case, t he packagi ng i s opaque, so consumer s ar e not

l i kel y t o r el y on t he pr oduct conf i gur at i on as i ndi cat i ve of i t s

sour ce. The pi ct or i al r epr esent at i on of t he pr oduct conf i gur at i on

t hat appear s on t he packagi ng i s di scussed i n t he packagi ng sect i on

bel ow. Thus, t hi s f actor car r i es l i t t l e wei ght i n connect i on wi t h

pr oduct conf i gur at i on.

b. Strength of the Product Configuration

[ T] he t r ademar k di st i nct i veness scal e i s i l l - sui t ed f or

appl i cat i on t o t r ade dr ess i nher i ng i n a pr oduct conf i gur at i on.

Versa Pr ods. , 50 F. 3d at 203. The Cour t does, however , acknowl edge

t hat Pl ai nt i f f s i ncont est abl e t r ademar k regi st r at i on i n t he pr oduct

conf i gur at i on concl usi vel y demonst r at es i nher ent di st i nct i veness and

secondar y meani ng.However , t hat f act or i s compl i cat ed i n t hi s si t uat i on because t he

st r engt h of pr oduct conf i gur at i on i s r el evant t o det er mi ni ng

l i kel i hood of conf usi on onl y i f consumer s r el y on t he pr oduct

conf i gur at i on t o i dent i f y t he pr oducer of t he good. I d.

[REDACTED]

31



32/44

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Addi t i onal l y, Def endant s have been pr oduci ng t aqui t o chi ps f or pr i vat e

l abel br ands i n t he same pr oduct conf i gur at i on si nce l at e 2011. Thus,

t he st r engt h of t he pr oduct conf i gur at i on as an i dent i f i er i s weak.

c. Degree of Customer Care

A consumer exer ci si ng or di nar y car e i s l i kel y t o r el y on

packagi ng, t r ademar ks, and adver t i si ng, r at her t han pr oduct

conf i gur at i on, t o ascer t ai n t he sour ce of a pr oduct . Because cl ear

l abel i ng t hus shoul d gener al l y be l egal l y and f act ual l y suf f i ci ent t o

r emedy conf usi on where unpatent ed pr oduct conf i gur at i ons are at i ssue,

cl ar i t y of l abel i ng ( and mar ket i ng) must be taken i nt o account i n

consi der i ng whet her t her e i s a l i kel i hood t hat consumer s exercising

ordinary care wi l l be conf used as t o t he sour ces of subst ant i al l y

i dent i cal pr oduct s. I d. at 204. Thi s f act or , as appl i ed t o pr oduct

conf i gur at i on, car r i es l i t t l e wei ght .

d. Actual Confusion

The act ual conf usi on f act or appl i es equal l y t o product

conf i gur at i on as t o t r ademar k or packagi ng cases. I f a def endant s

pr oduct has been sol d f or an appr eci abl e per i od of t i me wi t hout

evi dence of act ual conf usi on, one can i nf er t hat cont i nued mar ket i ng

wi l l not l ead t o consumer conf usi on i n t he f ut ur e. I d. at 205.

I n t hi s case, Pl ai nt i f f s have not pr esent ed any evi dence of

act ual conf usi on based on pr oduct conf i gur at i on. Thei r pur por t ed

evi dence of act ual conf usi on hear say st at ement s f r om Bar celempl oyees and comment s on soci al medi a i s di r ect ed t o t r ademark and

packagi ng, not product conf i gur at i on. Thus, t he f act or wei ghs agai nst

l i kel y conf usi on.

e. Intent

Al t hough i nt ent i s an appr opr i at e consi der at i on i n t he cont ext of

32



33/44

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

t r ademar k or pr oduct packagi ng t r ade dr ess, i t s appl i cabi l i t y t o

pr oduct conf i gur at i on i s doubt f ul . See i d. at 205. Wher e pr oduct

conf i gur at i ons ar e concer ned, we must be especi al l y war y of

under mi ni ng compet i t i on. Compet i t or s have br oad r i ght s t o copysuccessf ul pr oduct desi gns when those desi gns ar e not pr ot ect ed by

( ut i l i t y or desi gn) pat ent s. I t i s not unf ai r compet i t i on f or someone

t o t r ade of f t he good wi l l of aproduct . . . ; i t i s onl y unf ai r t o

decei ve consumers as t o t he or i gi n of one s goods and t hereby t r ade

of f t he good wi l l of a pr i or producer. I d. at 207 ( ci t at i on

omi t t ed) .

The Cour t agr ees wi t h t he Thi r d Ci r cui t s hol di ng i n Ver sa

Pr oduct s t hat i n t he pr oduct conf i gur at i on cont ext , a def endant s

i nt ent wei ghs i n f avor of a f i ndi ng of l i kel i hood of conf usi on onl y i f

i nt ent t o conf use or decei ve i s demonst r at ed by cl ear and convi nci ng

evi dence, and onl y wher e the pr oduct s l abel i ng and mar ket i ng ar e al so

af f i r mat i vel y mi sl eadi ng. I d. at 208; Leat her man Tool Gr oup, I nc. v.

Cooper I nds. , I nc. , 199 F. 3d 1009, 1013 ( 9t h Ci r . 1999) ( ci t i ng Ver sa

Pr oduct s and hol di ng t hat del i ber at e i nt ent t o copy does not suppor t

f i ndi ng a l i kel i hood of conf usi on i n pr oduct conf i gur at i on cases

unl ess a pr oduct s l abel i ng and mar ket i ng ar e al so af f i r mat i vel y

mi sl eadi ng) ; Bobr i ck Washroom Equi pment , I nc. v. Amer i can

Speci al t i es, I nc. , No. CV 10- 6938- SVW- PLAx, 2012 WL 3217858, at *15- 16

( C. D. Cal . Aug. 8, 2012) ( same) . For t he r easons set f or t h i n t het r ademar k and pr oduct packagi ng sect i ons, t he i nt ent f act or t her ef or e

wei ghs agai nst a f i ndi ng of l i kel i hood of conf usi on.

f. Relatedness of the Goods, Overlapping MarketingChannels, and Expansion of Product Lines

The anal ysi s under t hese t hree f act or s f or product conf i gur at i on

33



34/44

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

i s t he same as f or t r ademark.

Based on t he anal ysi s of t he f or egoi ng f act or s, t he Cour t f i nds

no l i kel i hood of conf usi on f or pr oduct conf i gur at i on.

3. Conclusion on the Merits

Accor di ngl y, Pl ai nt i f f s have not met t hei r bur den of showi ng a

l i kel i hood of success on t he mer i t s of t hei r pr oduct conf i gur at i on

t r ade dr ess i nf r i ngement cl ai m.

C. Trade Dress (Packaging)

To asser t a cl ai m f or t r ade dress i nf r i ngement , a pl ai nt i f f must

pr ove t hr ee basi c el ement s: ( 1) pl ai nt i f f owns a pr ot ect abl e t r ade

dr ess i n a cl ear l y ar t i cul at ed desi gn or combi nat i on of el ement s t hat

i s ei t her i nher ent l y di st i nct i ve or has acqui r ed di st i nct i veness

t hr ough secondary meani ng; ( 2) t he accused mark or t r ade dr ess cr eat es

a l i kel i hood of conf usi on as t o sour ce, or as t o sponsor shi p,

af f i l i at i on or connect i on; and ( 3) i f t he t r ade dr ess i s not

r egi st er ed, t he pl ai nt i f f must pr ove t hat t he t r ade dr ess i s not

f uncti onal . I f t he t r ade dr ess i s r egi st er ed, t he r egi st r at i on i s

pr esumpt i ve evi dence of non- f unct i onal i t y and t he bur den of showi ng

f unct i onal i t y i s on t he accused def endant . McCar t hy on Tr ademar ks

8: 1 ( 4t h ed. 2013) .

1. Validity

As di scussed above i n Sect i on I I I . A. 1, r egi st r at i on of a mar k i s

pr i ma f aci e evi dence of val i di t y. 15 U. S. C. 1072, 1115; Par k NFl y, I nc. v. Dol l ar Par k & Fl y, I nc. , 469 U. S. 189, 202 ( 1985) . I n

cont r ast wi t h t he TAKI S t r ademark, whi ch appear s t o have become

i ncont est abl e t hr ough f i ve year s use af t er f eder al r egi st r at i on, t he

r egi st r at i ons f or t he var i ous TAKI S t r ade dr ess have not become

i ncont est abl e. See, e. g. Mann Decl . , Ex. 1 at 147, 151, 154, and 158

34



35/44

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

( t r ade dr ess f or TAKI S Cr unchy Faj i t a, Fuego, Guacamol e, and Sal sa

Br ava al l r egi st er ed May 4, 2010) . As a r esul t , al t hough r egi st r at i on

i s pr i ma f aci e evi dence of val i di t y, t he Lanham Act shal l not

pr ecl ude an opposi ng par t y f r om pr ovi ng any l egal or equi t abl e def enseor def ect . . . whi ch mi ght have been asser t ed i f such mark had not

been r egi st er ed. 15 U. S. C. 1115( a) . Def endant s must r ebut t he

pr esumpt i on of val i di t y by a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence. Vui t t on

et Fi l s S. A. v. J . Young Ent er pr i ses, I nc. , 644 F. 2d 769, 776 (9t h

Ci r . 1981) ( t he pr esumpt i on of val i di t y need not be r ebut t ed by cl ear

and convi nci ng evi dence; onl y a pr eponderance of t he evi dence i s

r equi r ed) .

Tr ade dress consi st s of di scr et e el ement s t hat make up t he t ot al

i mage of a pr oduct and may i ncl ude f eat ur es such as si ze, shape,

col or , col or combi nat i ons, t ext ur e or gr aphi cs. I nt l J ensen, I nc.

v. Met r osound U. S. A. , I nc. , 4 F. 3d 819, 822 ( 9t h Ci r . 1993) . Tr ade

dr ess protect i on i s br oader i n scope t han t r ademark pr ot ect i on because

i t prot ects aspect s of packagi ng and pr oduct desi gn t hat cannot be

r egi st er ed f or t r ademar k pr ot ect i on and because i t r equi r es t he

cour t t o f ocus on t he ent i r e sel l i ng i mage. Cl i cks Bi l l i ar ds v.

Si xshoot er s I nc. , 251 F. 3d 1252, 1259 ( 9t h Ci r . 2001) ( [ W] e f ocus not

on t he i ndi vi dual el ement s, but r at her t he over al l vi sual i mpr essi on

t hat t he combi nat i on and arr angement of t hose el ement s cr eat e. ) .

To be prot ect abl e, t he combi nat i on of el ements must be ei t heri nher ent l y di st i nct i ve or have acqui r ed di st i nct i veness t hr ough

secondar y meani ng. The cour t eval uat es sever al f act or s t o det er mi ne

whet her packagi ng i s so uni que, unusual , or unexpect ed i n thi s mar ket

t hat one can assume wi t hout pr oof t hat i t wi l l aut omat i cal l y be

per cei ved by consumer s as an i ndi cat or of or i gi n: ( 1) whet her t he

35



36/44

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

desi gn i s a common basi c shape or desi gn, ( 2) whether i t was uni que or

unusual i n a par t i cul ar f i el d, ( 3) whet her i t was a mer e r ef i nement of

a commonl y- adopt ed and wel l - known f orm of ornament at i on f or a

par t i cul ar cl ass of goods vi ewed by the publ i c as a dr ess oror nament at i on f or t he goods, or ( 4) whet her i t was

Documents

Grupo Bimbo - Order Denying PI